CW was nerfed because it made Swashbucklers feel bad. Since that class is still pretty weak, they went another step ahead and nerfed all classes who did the "charming duelist" better than hi and managed to nerf an already pointlessly restrictive Dex-to-damage feat...
The designer of the Shwashbuckler ignored 99% of all feedback he got during the playtest and ended up giving us an underwhelming class... Now they "fix" it by nerfing everything similar to Swashbucklers.
Nothing to be surprised about... That's Paizo errata policy 101.
So, here's a problem with version 4.0 of Crane Wing: now the stamina trick associated with it doesn't work.
When fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can spend 5 stamina points to designate a second opponent for your Crane Wing feat. You also gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC against that opponent's attacks.
The language from the base feat this is mimicking is gone now, replaced with the +4 against one attack thing. What do, Paizo?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, here's a problem with version 4.0 of Crane Wing: now the stamina trick associated with it doesn't work.
When fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can spend 5 stamina points to designate a second opponent for your Crane Wing feat. You also gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC against that opponent's attacks.The language from the base feat this is mimicking is gone now, replaced with the +4 against one attack thing. What do, Paizo?
I'd say for sure 5 stamina points to not lose the AC after the first time it makes an attack miss, thus letting you keep deflecting attacks as long as you spend stamina; yes this proposal would allow you to make more ripostes if you had the AoOs for it!
The monks AC never really changes if you want it to not change. Just keep it normal and check if an attack hits you by 4 or less. If so you can deflect it. Now the Monk's AC never changes and the mechanics are the same Since you have to use it on the first attack that triggers it anyways.
Not the way play tends to work in reality. GM asks what your AC is and then rolls attacks and tells you hits and damage. Now he has to do them one at a time and ask "Does X hit?" every time. Because that 22 that missed last attack just might hit now.
The monks AC never really changes if you want it to not change. Just keep it normal and check if an attack hits you by 4 or less. If so you can deflect it. Now the Monk's AC never changes and the mechanics are the same Since you have to use it on the first attack that triggers it anyways.Not the way play tends to work in reality. GM asks what your AC is and then rolls attacks and tells you hits and damage. Now he has to do them one at a time and ask "Does X hit?" every time. Because that 22 that missed last attack just might hit now.
If you go with my view the 22 that misses still misses, the 22 that hits still hits. Then you see if any hit was negated by checking if it hit by four or less.
GM rolls 7 dice for 7 attacks.
Player "My AC is 20, if any attack scores a hit with a 20-24 negate 1 attack"
Okay, the dragon went bite, claws, wings, tail, and then hasted bite.
Okay so the dragons bite was 25, claws, one misses and the other is good, oh look one of the wings was a 21, so that misses, and the other wing missed too...
Same with archers and anything. All it "forces" is having the dice correlate to specific attacks.
I'd say for sure 5 stamina points to not lose the AC after the first time it makes an attack miss, thus letting you keep deflecting attacks as long as you spend stamina; yes this proposal would allow you to make more ripostes if you had the AoOs for it!So, here's a problem with version 4.0 of Crane Wing: now the stamina trick associated with it doesn't work.
When fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can spend 5 stamina points to designate a second opponent for your Crane Wing feat. You also gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC against that opponent's attacks.The language from the base feat this is mimicking is gone now, replaced with the +4 against one attack thing. What do, Paizo?
Neat. I'll propose it our GMs, see if it flies with them.
Any chance this is going to be the official errata for that stamina trick? And do you think 4.0 is the last version of Crane Wing we're going to see? It'd just be really nice to not have to switch up the way this feat works a fourth time.
The monks AC never really changes if you want it to not change. Just keep it normal and check if an attack hits you by 4 or less. If so you can deflect it. Now the Monk's AC never changes and the mechanics are the same Since you have to use it on the first attack that triggers it anyways.Not the way play tends to work in reality. GM asks what your AC is and then rolls attacks and tells you hits and damage.
In my experience as well.
Chess Pwn, as for your most recent post setting out a way you can run it with a certain, not enormous amount of extra bookkeeping, I was never saying the amount of extra work is insurmountable. Merely that it represents one more small burden among a great many small burdens.
I'd say for sure 5 stamina points to not lose the AC after the first time it makes an attack miss, thus letting you keep deflecting attacks as long as you spend stamina; yes this proposal would allow you to make more ripostes if you had the AoOs for it!So, here's a problem with version 4.0 of Crane Wing: now the stamina trick associated with it doesn't work.
When fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can spend 5 stamina points to designate a second opponent for your Crane Wing feat. You also gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC against that opponent's attacks.The language from the base feat this is mimicking is gone now, replaced with the +4 against one attack thing. What do, Paizo?Neat. I'll propose it our GMs, see if it flies with them.
Any chance this is going to be the official errata for that stamina trick? And do you think 4.0 is the last version of Crane Wing we're going to see? It'd just be really nice to not have to switch up the way this feat works a fourth time.
I would be absolutely shocked if Crane Wing changed again. Shocked, I say!
I’ll be attempting to keep a running tally of statistics over the next few sessions to see how CWv4 stacks up against CWv3 and maybe CWv1 during gameplay. Our first session since the change was not a great sample since there were only about 2-3 rounds of melee combat. During that time CWv4 worked for me once, and CWv3 wouldn’t have helped since the affected attack hit by 4 while all the others missed badly.
I figured that regenerating the +4 AC bonus after it has been used would be one of the more likely fixes for the Crane Wing combat trick. The 5 point price seems a little steep. I guess if it isn't an action to use that might help make it appealing compared to the Crane Style trick, which gives +1 AC per stamina point up to +3 but requires an immediate action. I suppose that the potential for an extra AoO also might be tempting if you've already got Combat Reflexes or have other reasons to take it.
I’ll be attempting to keep a running tally of statistics over the next few sessions to see how CWv4 stacks up against CWv3 and maybe CWv1 during gameplay. Our first session since the change was not a great sample since there were only about 2-3 rounds of melee combat. During that time CWv4 worked for me once, and CWv3 wouldn’t have helped since the affected attack hit by 4 while all the others missed badly.
I figured that regenerating the +4 AC bonus after it has been used would be one of the more likely fixes for the Crane Wing combat trick. The 5 point price seems a little steep. I guess if it isn't an action to use that might help make it appealing compared to the Crane Style trick, which gives +1 AC per stamina point up to +3 but requires an immediate action. I suppose that the potential for an extra AoO also might be tempting if you've already got Combat Reflexes or have other reasons to take it.
Yeah, I also figured not an action for it.
I would be absolutely shocked if Crane Wing changed again. Shocked, I say!I'd say for sure 5 stamina points to not lose the AC after the first time it makes an attack miss, thus letting you keep deflecting attacks as long as you spend stamina; yes this proposal would allow you to make more ripostes if you had the AoOs for it!So, here's a problem with version 4.0 of Crane Wing: now the stamina trick associated with it doesn't work.
When fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can spend 5 stamina points to designate a second opponent for your Crane Wing feat. You also gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC against that opponent's attacks.The language from the base feat this is mimicking is gone now, replaced with the +4 against one attack thing. What do, Paizo?Neat. I'll propose it our GMs, see if it flies with them.
Any chance this is going to be the official errata for that stamina trick? And do you think 4.0 is the last version of Crane Wing we're going to see? It'd just be really nice to not have to switch up the way this feat works a fourth time.
Almost as shocked as you were to find gambling at Ricks?
If they do change Crane Wing again I hope they allow you to apply the +4 AC once per round after you're "hit". I'd prefer that not to cost an action since I have better things to do with immediate and swift actions. The potential drawbacks I can see:
#1 - Some DMs might get annoyed if they think the monster has hit and then the player says, "Haha! Crane Wing! You missed!"
#2 - The player might dawdle over the decision of whether or not to say, "Haha! Crane Wing! You missed!"
I don't think either one of those seem too bad.
It's also worth mentioning that deflect arrows doesn't work on massive weapons like siege engines, giant thrown boulders, and manticore spikes.
I feel if the original crane wing had a caveat that you can't deflect natural attacks or weapons two sizes or more larger than you, it would have been less offensive in the original mode.
This.
I always thought deflecting a Huge or Larger attack with the new Crane Wing has always seemed a little goofy to me, which the new feat doesn't address either. Natural attacks I'm a little less sold on(since there are so many creatures who do them), but I feel that the size issue fix at least would be a step in the right direction.
Should there be yet another version of Crane Wing, I'd want it to be the old Crane Wing with this stipulation. Between the MoMS changes giving players early entry to the feat now gone, and this theoretical change, I don't know who could possibly complain. Especially since you can't get Crane Wing till level 5 after several requisites.
Dude, my halfling monk loved deflecting ancient red dragon's bite attacks.
"the dragon whose teeth are all bigger than me comes with it's gaping maw to bite my top off. I'm completely surrounded by his maw, but I am like the crane, I (somehow) deflect the beast's mouth many many feet so that I don't get eaten, since the mouth is so big."
Dude, my halfling monk loved deflecting ancient red dragon's bite attacks.
"the dragon whose teeth are all bigger than me comes with it's gaping maw to bite my top off. I'm completely surrounded by his maw, but I am like the crane, I (somehow) deflect the beast's mouth many many feet so that I don't get eaten, since the mouth is so big."
You're a halfling, a creature shorter and lighter than my two year old who, on average, can lift 120lbs off the ground. You need to start much earlier in the character description if you want to glower at halfling absurdities. I do love them to pieces, but they are sillier than sin; halfling based tieflings doubly so.
Dude, my halfling monk loved deflecting ancient red dragon's bite attacks.
"the dragon whose teeth are all bigger than me comes with it's gaping maw to bite my top off. I'm completely surrounded by his maw, but I am like the crane, I (somehow) deflect the beast's mouth many many feet so that I don't get eaten, since the mouth is so big."
Easily described. You sidestepped just enough to fit within the grooves of the creature's massive teeth. Then, as the terrible monster pulls its maw away, you simply step back into your original position. :P
The halfling could even use his hand to push off the attacker. Explaining how the halfling without Crane Wing lives through actually getting bitten by the dragon seems a little tougher and probably involves some of the same mental gymnastics. Why does a halfling's shield prevent him or her from being knocked flying by a giant's club? It is a game of imagination I guess.
I'd really dislike getting a new errata which makes my PC's feat practically useless against many common foes. The fact that it would make the feat super effective against other foes seems like it would serve primarily as an encouragement for homebrew DMs to use the foes I suck against. This already happens to a limited extent with Greater Trip, but I was aware of that problem when I took the feat. Adding Crane to the pile of easily frustrated feat chains isn't a fix or an improvement IMO. I wonder if the idea of not being able to deflect natural weapons is a ripple from the old Crane Wing vs T-Rex debate though.
Dude, my halfling monk loved deflecting ancient red dragon's bite attacks.
"the dragon whose teeth are all bigger than me comes with it's gaping maw to bite my top off. I'm completely surrounded by his maw, but I am like the crane, I (somehow) deflect the beast's mouth many many feet so that I don't get eaten, since the mouth is so big."
Just yell "Royalguard" and "This party is getting CRAZY!" after doing that.
Easily described. You sidestepped just enough to fit within the grooves of the creature's massive teeth. Then, as the terrible monster pulls its maw away, you simply step back into your original position. :P
While I agree that's how I'd fluff it, that really isn't the point. A dragon has a boat load of attacks, so it doesn't matter if CW negates one attack. We're trying to mitigate the T-Rex vs CW scenario.
It stems from the way natural attacks work. From a mechanics scenario, big monsters get correspondingly big strength. They are more likely to hit and do more damage. Giving them more attacks increases the chances of them hitting and subsequently the damage they would do. Thus to make sure they don't abuse that STR by having multiple attacks, they often only get one(like the T-Rex).
So if we're worried about single attacks from big creatures(since again they won't have this feat before 5th level where everyone usually only has 1 attack), the size restriction is probably the easiest way to make those kind of encounters work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Easily described. You sidestepped just enough to fit within the grooves of the creature's massive teeth. Then, as the terrible monster pulls its maw away, you simply step back into your original position. :PWhile I agree that's how I'd fluff it, that really isn't the point. A dragon has a boat load of attacks, so it doesn't matter if CW negates one attack. We're trying to mitigate the T-Rex vs CW scenario.
It stems from the way natural attacks work. From a mechanics scenario, big monsters get correspondingly big strength. They are more likely to hit and do more damage. Giving them more attacks increases the chances of them hitting and subsequently the damage they would do. Thus to make sure they don't abuse that STR by having multiple attacks, they often only get one(like the T-Rex).
So if we're worried about single attacks from big creatures(since again they won't have this feat before 5th level where everyone usually only has 1 attack), the size restriction is probably the easiest way to make those kind of encounters work.
Dragons have a boatload of attacks, yes. But they don't use them half the time, they're too busy using other, more valuable tactics. They're also geniuses, so they're smarter about utilizing their attacks, as well as being able to finagle their way of affecting the character without having to deal with Crane Wing.
T-Rexs are animals. They have 2 Intelligence. They can spend a feat to gain 2 Bite Attacks, and quite frankly, the T-Rex has several other, meaningful options it can use, but because it has 2 Intelligence, it doesn't. Blaming Crane Wing for completely negating a creature, when Crane Wing doesn't completely negate a whole lot of creatures to begin with, has nothing to do with Crane Wing being overpowered. It deals with horrible encounter design.
Additionally, as I've said before, the whole "T-Rex V.S. Crane Wing" match is a worst-case scenario regarding Crane Wing for GMs, and if you're running into that many worst-case scenarios, the problem certainly isn't with the feat, it's with the factor that the GM is constantly using these scenarios, especially when it's true that in other scenarios, Crane Wing isn't nearly as powerful (or in fact, useless). If you're running into that many worst case scenarios with the other, varied encounters you're running, then you examine what's causing the problem, and solve it.
For example, a lot of the PFS GMs complained about how players were getting Crane Wing by level 2 (or 1), and nullifying encounters because of it. Further examination told us that the encounters for the lower levels usually involve the following things:
-Single Attack Enemies
-Enemies engaging in one-on-one combat
-Characters having to dip a certain Monk archetype to accomplish this combination, when normal acquisition requires a higher level, where enemies are prone to possessing more than 1 attack.
So let's see, what could we do to solve these issues?
1. Throw more enemies with multiple Natural Attacks at characters, such as Bite + 2 Claws, or TWF.
2. Throw more enemies that are actually smart enough to gang up on a character.
3. Simply ignore the character and go after someone who isn't so durable.
4. Alter the dynamics of the Monk archetype which enabled this nonsense to not enable this nonsense, as well as other silly nonsense like the Snake Fang.
In the case of PFS, option 1 goes straight out the window, because altering the design encounters is against the rules (unfortunately). Options 2 and 3 might be viable for PFS, but a lot of characters who do so would take offense to being ganged up on all the time. Similarly, not all enemies are actually capable of using their brains to focus-fire characters. Option 4 was certainly viable, but wasn't implemented because [reasons].
So, Paizo decided that none of these options were fitting solutions (at first), and instead gave it a major nerfbat to the head. Crane Wing got a serious concussion from that: It no longer functions nearly the same as it did, and they did it because it was getting too much bad attention in PFS. They had to act, otherwise one of their big money makers would go under, and so they threw a quick 'hotfix.'
Now that is settled down, they tried to fix it up a little more, and decided that in addition to the nerfbat to the skull (that they didn't really adjust), they should also add Option 4, just to make sure it never becomes a problem in PFS again. I'd rather have preferred they implemented option 4 from the get-go and left everything else as it is, and would've killed two birds with one stone. Crane Wing had a niche, and it was a really needed niche for Martials.
Being able to negate a single melee attack was a welcome onset, but it was only too powerful in a few specific scenarios. T-Rex is one of them. 1st level Two-Handed Martials is another (and far more commonplace). There are maybe a couple more, but these were the biggest gripes.
You can't fix the first one without completely acquitting the encounter and/or implementing something else, but how often do players fight T-Rexs? Very rarely. How often do T-Rexs face Monks who actually take the Crane Wing feat? Barely any at all. I mean, you might as well have some Anti-Dinosaur Monk Sect or something, if apparently Crane Wing Monks V.S. T-Rexs (or similar creature design structuring) is an everyday thing. It's not, it shouldn't be, and quite frankly if it is, you need to have a sitdown with yourself, and question whether you enjoy playing a game of Insanity or not (in other words, doing the same thing over and over again with a fixed outcome, and actually expecting different results).
Two-Handed Martials are something that occurs from multiple classes; Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers (maybe), the list goes on. But Two-Handed Martials stem from Iteratives. Iteratives allow for more than one attack. Iterative Attacks begin at 6th level. These problems occur from levels 1-5. The original Crane Wing feat is designed for Monks of 5th level or higher (or characters with 5 BAB). If characters are getting it at 2nd level, then the problem isn't that Crane Wing is broken, it's that it's being used in a case that it otherwise wasn't originally designed to be used in.
Vital Strike is perhaps the only one that Crane Wing can't ever be fixed, but for starters, that's one of the problems with the T-Rex encounter. Vital Strike in itself is 100% countered by Crane Wing, and to be honest, I think it's fair for that to happen. There are things that should have direct counters to it, and for Vital Strike, Crane Wing is its mortal enemy. It's okay for certain things to not be effective against certain things, that's the point of having varied options, and is the essence of balance.
/endotherunusuallyplacedrant
I think that examining the scope of Crane Wing by putting T-Rex in a comedic "strawman" outfit and pitting him against the theoretical 5th level Monk or 2nd level pre-errata Master of Many Styles misses the point or possibly even several points. If you're only expecting to be hit infrequently then being able to auto-deflect while keeping your full attack is very good. Nat 20 negation is also the sort of thing which drives many DMs absolutely bonkers.
I don't think that fighting the errata war of 2 years ago over and over forever really helps anybody though. If we concentrate on the actual Crane Wing we have right now or at least the general power level it fits into maybe we can better make suggestions for Paizo to consider if they make any future adjustments to the Crane feats or the combat tricks for them.
People can't agree about whether CWv1 fit under the acceptable power ceiling (Paizo says no), but I wonder if they feel CWv4 is above the power floor for being a desirable feat at least in some builds (barring "just being silly" and "my build is that my PC is a total loser"). I used v2 for a while and found the guessing kind of irritating. I liked v3, found it effective, and enjoyed the AoOs. I don't have enough experience with v4 yet to say much though in theory it looks OK.
For me the new version is the sort of thing I'd forget (getting old I guess), and the four point variation is close enough that all the modifiers need to be taken into account before play can proceed, so you can't eyeball it without doing the math. If you're hitting on 13 plus, that could be plus or minus 4. It's the same thing that kept me away from snake style/panther style combinations.
Coriat, long ago, debunked the T-Rex vs CW monk (back in the original feat's version), utterly. And yet, no one pays attention to that, and instead, the fix has been to add ever more fiddly little rules on top of the mechanic. Because the best thing for the game is to pause in the middle of a combat, take out the rulebooks and figure out how your feat works.
I think that examining the scope of Crane Wing by putting T-Rex in a comedic "strawman" outfit and pitting him against the theoretical 5th level Monk or 2nd level pre-errata Master of Many Styles misses the point or possibly even several points. If you're only expecting to be hit infrequently then being able to auto-deflect while keeping your full attack is very good. Nat 20 negation is also the sort of thing which drives many DMs absolutely bonkers.
I don't think that fighting the errata war of 2 years ago over and over forever really helps anybody though. If we concentrate on the actual Crane Wing we have right now or at least the general power level it fits into maybe we can better make suggestions for Paizo to consider if they make any future adjustments to the Crane feats or the combat tricks for them.
People can't agree about whether CWv1 fit under the acceptable power ceiling (Paizo says no), but I wonder if they feel CWv4 is above the power floor for being a desirable feat at least in some builds (barring "just being silly" and "my build is that my PC is a total loser"). I used v2 for a while and found the guessing kind of irritating. I liked v3, found it effective, and enjoyed the AoOs. I don't have enough experience with v4 yet to say much though in theory it looks OK.
There are other creatures that had similar mechanics to the T-Rex; one attack, lots of damage. Vital Strike, level 1-5 non-TWF martials, no Haste, etc. T-Rex became the flux of the argument because people thought it was silly that a Monk could indefinitely put a stop to a creature as huge and as powerful as a T-Rex. But again, that was worst case for the GM. An average case scenario, it didn't automatically put a stop to all the attacks put against said Monk; it helped, but it wasn't gamebreaking. And a best case scenario made it 100% useless. That's actually a pretty balanced option when you look at it; there should be times where an option is powerful, times when it's not that powerful, and times when it's just simply a liability.
Optimizers learn to always either have all the options that are powerful all the time, or have every option available that is powerful for every certain scenario. Crane Wing's problem was the ability to use it before it was normally supposed to be used; that was always the problem, because without people dipping 2 levels in MoMS to pick up the feat by ignoring the pre-requisites, you would never be seeing it except in the levels where it should be seen anyway.
The mechanical fix needed was extremely simple to implement; remove the early access. MoMS could still keep their ability to acquire Style feats, but they wouldn't be able to ignore pre-requisites anymore (or to be more accurate, their pre-requisition ignorance could apply only to Feats with the Style type; 2nd and 3rd chain Style feats did not have the Style type).
So why didn't they just do that? Because PFS GMs were raging and threatening to mutiny until Paizo nerfed Crane Wing into oblivion (which in turn actually nullified Crane Riposte). Another, much easier option, would be to simply ban the Crane Style feat chain from PFS, but I guess apparently it's not up to the PFS Directors and such to ban these options which are apparently ruining PFS gameplay. (Divine Protection, anyone?)
But of course, that is spilled milk we're talking about. If we really must direct our attention to the present, then you should at least understand that the current Crane Wing that is being discussed now, is a result of "Fighting the Errata War of 2 years ago," and knowing how and why it got to where it is now is just as important as to what it does now; and in my opinion, it's still not worth its salt.
If anything, it's even worse because you're essentially dealing with the same guessing games that its initial errata forced players to deal with, except instead of it being a proactive annoyance, it's a reactive annoyance.
I can guarantee you that both the GMS and Players will hate the extra bookkeeping and modifier tracking when creatures make attacks on Players who possess this feat, as well as determining the consequences of rolls. It'll slow down gameplay because players and GMs have to re-evaluate the feat, as well as the dice rolls because the initial rolls may affect the subsequent rolls results, and it's just a nuisance.
The predecessor was a little easier to play with, because for starters, it provided a static modifier against a single target's attacks, it only affected one entire set of dice rolls for one target. But it still defeats the entire purpose of the feat. Although this new adjustment does capture some of the original (being able to deflect attacks in Full Defense), it still carries a lot of the issues from the initial errata with it (AKA the guessing).
I think that examining the scope of Crane Wing by putting T-Rex in a comedic "strawman" outfit and pitting him against the theoretical 5th level Monk or 2nd level pre-errata Master of Many Styles misses the point or possibly even several points. If you're only expecting to be hit infrequently then being able to auto-deflect while keeping your full attack is very good. Nat 20 negation is also the sort of thing which drives many DMs absolutely bonkers.
The chief point that it misses is that it is factually, RAW, incorrect, and doesn't work against the T-Rex in the way that people thought that it did.
I think that examining the scope of Crane Wing by putting T-Rex in a comedic "strawman" outfit and pitting him against the theoretical 5th level Monk or 2nd level pre-errata Master of Many Styles misses the point or possibly even several points. If you're only expecting to be hit infrequently then being able to auto-deflect while keeping your full attack is very good. Nat 20 negation is also the sort of thing which drives many DMs absolutely bonkers.The chief point that it misses is that it is factually, RAW, incorrect, and doesn't work against the T-Rex in the way that people thought that it did.
I've seen this mentioned, but I'm not familiar with how it doesn't work. Would you mind explaining?
The key RAW observation was that v1 Crane Wing required you to already be fighting defensively in order to be able to deflect an attack.
Since you can't be fighting defensively until you have actually made an attack, the T Rex simply eats the 2nd level Master of Many Styles (or 5th level regular monk) on the AoO as they close in, before they have gotten their first hit in. Or if it goes first, it eats them with its normal attack from 20' away, no Crane.
You could try to start the fight within 5' of a T Rex, but good luck sneaking up on a monster with scent and +37 Perception at 2nd level.
Even if you managed to get into melee with it without being eaten - say it rolls a 1 on that first attack - and get Crane Wing up, as long as you aren't fighting the Gargantuan animal in a 20 by 20 dungeon room, it can move around and use its reach to create undeflectable attacks in subsequent rounds.
So in the end, in a solo fight, 20' reach > Crane Wing.
|
The monk Total Defenses if the T-Rex loses initiative, and proceeds to 5ft step his way in, deflecting the T-rex's single attack every time until he can get within reach to attack while fighting defensively. Unless the T-Rex decides to run away, the monk will eventually kill it. Even if the T-rex backs off to try and gain reach, the monk just returns to 5ft stepping through the reach as he started.
(Assuming we are referring to v1.)
Well that is way simpler than I expected. I'd been thinking of the feat on paper and it looked alright, putting it on a grid makes it look much less appealing; of course the new version inherits this limitation as well. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
TOZ, the original feat did not deflect combat maneuvers, allowing such a foolish monk to be grappled, pinned, and eaten by the T-Rex if normal bites prove too much trouble.
The monk Total Defenses if the T-Rex loses initiative, and proceeds to 5ft step his way in, deflecting the T-rex's single attack every time until he can get within reach to attack while fighting defensively. Unless the T-Rex decides to run away, the monk will eventually kill it. Even if the T-rex backs off to try and gain reach, the monk just returns to 5ft stepping through the reach as he started.
(Assuming we are referring to v1.)
I remember that. Out of all the attempts to find a clever trick to resurrect the monk's victory, that was the only one that didn't actually still end in his death once you took the trouble to evaluate it by the rules. But mechanically, it still leads to stalemate rather than victory.
And yeah, there is Kain's point. I never did like the FAQ that made v1 Crane Wing able to deflect combat maneuvers, and I have said that change ought not to have been made. Original original Crane Wing, you can always just swallow the guy.
Edit: in fact it looks like I said that in this very thread. :p
|
|
I remember that. Out of all the attempts to find a clever trick to resurrect the monk's victory, that was the only one that didn't actually still end in his death. But mechanically, it still leads to stalemate rather than victory.
Assuming the T-Rex is smart enough to run from the monk.
TOZ, the original feat did not deflect combat maneuvers...
Not as I read it. Nor, apparently, as the FAQ read it.
Crane Wing [Combat]
You move with the speed and fineese of an avian hunter, your sweeping blocks and graceful motions allowing you to deflect melee attacks with ease.
Prerequisites: Crane Style, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +5 or monk level 5th.
Benefit:Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.
I don't know, are combat maneuvers weapon attacks? They certainly aren't listed under the "attacks" heading, and are called out as a potential replacement for an attack, but literally they are attacks.
"A deflected attack deals no damage" Nothing else was included. A grapple is not damage. A disarm is not damage. A trip is not damage. The argument could be made for sunder, but really, no one is trying to sunder most monks' weapons.
The right call on the original FAQ (Crane Wing v1.5) would have been to keep damage and regular attacks, and clarify that combat maneuvers were not valid deflections. It would have eliminated most of the issues with the mechanic being able to 'lockdown' one hit attackers in a ridiculous fashion.
However, note that your scenario does require the monk to win initiative (and presumably avoid being surprised by) against the T-Rex. All of this, just to get into a 5-ft. step dance with the Rex. I wonder who gets tired first?
|
|
I don't know, are combat maneuvers weapon attacks? They certainly aren't listed under the "attacks" heading, and are called out as a potential replacement for an attack, but literally they are attacks.
It's been so long since this argument was had, I'm too fuzzy on all the particulars. Assuming Coriat remembers the FAQ correctly, combat maneuvers counted.
I wonder who gets tired first?
No one, barring GM fiat.
I don't know, are combat maneuvers weapon attacks? They certainly aren't listed under the "attacks" heading, and are called out as a potential replacement for an attack, but literally they are attacks.It's been so long since this argument was had, I'm too fuzzy on all the particulars. Assuming Coriat remembers the FAQ correctly, combat maneuvers counted.
I wonder who gets tired first?No one, barring GM fiat.
Combat maneuvers are attacks, and the original FAQ of the feat changed the 'deals no damage' to 'deals no damage and has no CMB effect'
Then of course, it went on its roller coaster of errata and sadness.
Is it fiat to rule a 10 or 20 hour combat has to make the same checks that someone who has been simply moving for that long (forced march)? I don't consider it so, but I do agree the rules for needing sleep are a bit fuzzy.
Characters who spend every turn full defending? :p
Practically speaking, I think you'd probably end up in difficult terrain where the monk's step stops working much earlier, though. The Rex's listed environments do feature such.
Keeping Full Defense up forever is still a way to survive, not a way to win. And the original old claim, that a Crane Monk could guaranteed defeat a T Rex with no danger to himself, still doesn't exist even in the most extended and impractical full defense scenarios, where you've got about 50% chance of being eaten right off the bat and a 50% chance of stalemate.
Is it fiat to rule a 10 or 20 hour combat...Who the f%!% has 10 or 20 hour combats?
Well, the monk who is full defending every round, and 5 ft. stepping. The T-rex steps back and bites. The monk deflects, while full defending and 5 ft. steps forward.
Indefinitely. Until one of them breaks off the combat, or like Coriat mentions, until the combat moves into light underbrush, heavy underbrush, swamp, shallow water, etc. Then no more 5 ft. step.
So terrain ends the monk's dance or after 8 hours (4800 rounds) of dancing, the DM determines it's equivalent of a forced march and starts calling for checks vs nonlethal damage.
I don't see anything in the rules where certain intelligences are limited from using a 5-ft. step, which is a mild repositioning that avoids attack. Wolves use it constantly in real life.
I suppose you would have a problem with an animal using an untrained Heal check to stop bleed damage as well?
Why is it that the rules only are to apply on a featureless plain that has the T-Rex just wait for the monk to come up to him and beat him to death?
|
|
I suppose you would have a problem with an animal using an untrained Heal check to stop bleed damage as well?
Nope, not at all!
Why is it that the rules only are to apply on a featureless plain that has the T-Rex just wait for the monk to come up to him and beat him to death?
I don't believe I've ever said anything like this.
*shrugs* It's doesn't require high intelligence to fight by keeping your distance, when you have 20' reach.
In the real world, even insects exploit reach advantages to kill each other without danger.
And the T Rex has the hit points to screw it up a few times and not really mind. Maybe he moves in for the swallow, gets a few punches to the nose, and figures out to keep his distance and circle the prey.
Doesn't seem at all implausible. Now, you might protest an animal with huge reach skirmishing and circling, that's fine for your game, but I don't see anything to object to in mine.
That all said,
I honestly don't really find it a problem that a defensive specialist focusing solely on watching for each incoming bite and dodging it might, with perfect tactics, good terrain, and a healthy dose of sheer luck, be able to survive - not kill - a T rex. The problematic scenario, and the one that still never existed, was the one where a 2nd level MOMS could walk up and beat a T rex to death with no danger to himself. If he can manage to stare it down and nimbly evade each time it lunges, till finally it goes in search of easier prey - that's kind of fun and thematic, and the kind of thing your table would tell stories about later. IMO.
Just go to youtube and look at any video of a snake fighting something if you want to see an animal using movement and positioning to leverage its reach and speed.
Would readying an action to attack an old-school Crane Wing monk as soon as he "tries to adopt a defensive posture" work to get a hit in before his defensive fighting becomes active for the round?
I don't know, are combat maneuvers weapon attacks? They certainly aren't listed under the "attacks" heading, and are called out as a potential replacement for an attack, but literally they are attacks.
No, and this was what eventually pounded my MoMS monk. My GM essentially went "AHA! They errata'd Crane Wing!" and told me the rules, but it really didn't matter since my AC was high enough anyway. So instead he browbeat me with a rather ingenious (and much argued) ruling:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons... Thus the opposite should be true, and Sunder means I break your arms or legs or head...
He then proceeded to CMB me and deal full weapon damage + Strength to individual limbs i.e. my HP total for every encounter. Also, since it is a dodge bonus, if it becomes too much; DM's can simply flat-foot your CW user with whatever viable option necessary every round to remove the poor fool.